Economics Thread

Tapate50 said:
By cleaning out illegals immigrants from housing making it available and eliminating corporate holdings of large groups of homes ? And encouraging construction ? Plus Lowering interest rates ?

I’d have to see that math but then again I don’t have a degree in economics
Click to expand...
There are a lot of conflicting views on the impact of immigration on local economies.

I do think the consolidation of ownership is a major issue and support legislation designed to combat it. I have not complained about this, though it obviously shouldn’t (can’t?) be done via Executive Order.

“Encouraging construction” is just words.

Lowering interest rates is a mixed bag overall, but doesn’t necessarily do what you’re saying anyway. Banks still control their lending/mortgage practices independent of the Fed.
 
Tapate50 said:
I’m not sure anything is settled in regards to VZ do you? I’m ok not shitting my pants about the outcomes we want 4 years from now not being there today.

I mean it’s been like a week man
Click to expand...
That hasn’t stopped your side from claiming victory in Venezuela, no?
 
mqt said:
That hasn’t stopped your side from claiming victory in Venezuela, no?
Click to expand...
If a dictator is out, no. That’s a win/win. The people getting freed from political imprisonment is another

I didn’t see you glad for either just fretting about how it looks in the way future like we have any idea. You just assume all negative
 
Tapate50 said:
If a dictator is out, no. That’s a win/win. The people getting freed from political imprisonment is another

I didn’t see you glad for either just fretting about how it looks in the way future like we have any idea. You just assume all negative
Click to expand...
There’s a new dictator in place at the moment. Time will tell what happens with this one, but we took out a figurehead.
 
mqt said:
There’s a new dictator in place at the moment. Time will tell what happens with this one, but we took out a figurehead.
Click to expand...
That’s about the answer I I’d expect a rain cloud to give. It ain’t much of one.

Those people freed is bad ? The VZ people celebrating are bad ? They don’t know anything ?

That degree in world affairs too?
 
Go read the story on the US operation. You have two choices now. Expand freedom for your people and stop dealing with our enemies or we will just black bag you.

Pretty easy choice to make that simultaneously greatly improves the world
 
Last edited:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/institutional-home-investors-are-not-the-problem/

Over two-thirds of U.S. houses are owned traditionally by occupants, but a large segment of Americans has always preferred to rent their homes, especially earlier in life when it’s more difficult to afford homeownership. Of the roughly 30 percent of single-family homes that are rented out, the bulk are owned by small “mom-and-pop” investors with between one and nine units — think of your local landlord. The large institutional investors that Trump is targeting own just 2 percent of single-family rentals, or less than 1 percent of all single-family homes. Hardly the chief villain behind the problems in the American housing market.

Progressives like Elizabeth Warren despise institutional home investors because they’re big and corporate, even though they comprise a sliver of the housing market. Yet renting a house from a large corporation is functionally no different from renting it from a neighborhood landlord. Institutional investors have no greater pricing power than any other owner — they can only charge what the market will bear, limited by the competition of countless other rental properties.

Right-wing populists like Tucker Carlson and JD Vance hate them because they romanticize homeownership, and they believe that every home purchased by Blackstone or another corporation cannot then be owned by an American family. But American families live in every house that investors put up for rent. These are families that likely cannot afford a mortgage yet, but rental companies enable them to live in a single-family home regardless. Banning their landlords from the market does not mean renters can magically afford to buy a home all of a sudden. It simply pushes them into another rental property that they don’t prefer as much. Meanwhile, empirical evidence shows that their former homes are acquired by richer homebuyers.

Institutional investors provide the most value in metro areas with very high-priced housing markets, as they allow lower-income families to live in places they otherwise could not afford. That is why the percentage of rental properties owned by large landlords is much higher than the national average in cities with elevated home values — 25 percent in Atlanta and 21 percent in Jacksonville, for example, versus only 4 percent in St. Louis and 2 percent in Columbus.

In this sense, institutional investors are a symptom, not a cause, of tight housing supply. The Urban Institute notes that “institutional investors do not change housing supply or demand. Investors buy houses only because there is a renter household willing to live in the home.” The reason that households are willing to rent is often that homes are too expensive for them to purchase, which is more common in areas where supply is constrained.

Banning institutional investors from buying single-family homes is such an appealing answer to tight housing markets because it’s easy and imposes no clear cost on voters, but it would do nothing to help struggling prospective homeowners. It would merely punish a small segment of renters who benefit from the options that large investors provide, while raising rents slightly for everyone else by decreasing overall supply.

Perhaps worst of all, it would distract from the real solutions that the U.S. housing market desperately needs: breaking down state and local barriers to new construction, such as exclusionary zoning laws, overly stringent building codes, and byzantine permitting processes. If Trump truly wants to expand housing availability, he should seek to liberate the businesses that provide it, not banish a disfavored few of them from the marketplace.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/2008270979869642998

Add the half a trillion or so needed to fund "dream military" proposal from the other day to the list.

Apparently MAGA thinks tariff revenues are a bottomless well to fund their ever growing wish list, similar to those on the left who think we can pay for all of their big government fantasies by "asking the wealthy to pay a little bit more."

Of course, tariffs are also supposed to bring back those manufacturing jobs, which means importing fewer goods, which means tariff revenues decline, which means how exactly are we paying down the debt, eliminating the income tax, increasing military spending 50%, and sending everyone checks again?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top